FREE MP3 DOWNLOADS
Listen to/download this Radio Ecoshock show in CD Quality (56 MB) or Lo-Fi (14 MB)
Listen to/download the Mark Reynolds interview (27 minutes) in CD Quality or Lo-Fi
Listen to/download the Phil Cafaro inteview (25 minutes) in CD Quality or Lo-Fi
SHORT DESCRIPTION:
Kiss your old climate good-bye. That's the word from scientists and measuring agencies on all fronts.
John Vidal of the Guardian was among the first to report that measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere at Hawaii's Mauna Loa observatory hit an all-time new high in February 2013 at 396.8 parts per million.
We are pumping out greenhouse gases as ever faster rates. The increase in 2012 was 2.67 parts per million. That is the second highest on record.
As hope for a "safe" climate "fade away", Mark Reynolds of the Citizens Climate Lobby shows how we can overcome the fossil fuel lobby machine. I didn't believe that either, until Mark explained what they do.
Then a fine new book of essays by environmentalists, some well-known, others new, on the untouchable issue: population. The IPCC knows over-population is one of TWO main drivers of climate change. Why do they only talk about fossil fuels? Why does almost every green group duck talking population (and immigration reform)? Not on Radio Ecoshock, where Philip Cafaro talks about "Life on the Brink".
LISTEN TO THIS SHOW NOW!
ON OUR WAY TO CLIMATE DISASTER
We are pumping out greenhouse gases as ever faster rates. The increase in 2012 was 2.67 parts per million. That is the second highest on record. The highest was in 1998 at 2.93 parts per million when the Indonesian peat fires made that developing country the third largest emitter in the world.
Scientists used to say we were increasing at 2 parts per million annually. Models were based on that. Now it's heading toward three, and increasing incrementally. The head of the gas measurement program at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Pieter Tans said the increase is from fossil fuel burning, and our chances of staying below the 2 degree C safe level are "fading away".
Other researchers from Oregon State University, published in the journal Science, quote " during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit–until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F."
Earth is hotter now than it has been for the past eleven thousand years.
So it's on. Should we just cry about it? Probably. But in this program I'll bring you two voices who claim we could still save a livable Earth. They won't give up on the outside chance humanity could turn back toward survival.
Is the fossil fuel lobby too powerful? Start your own lobby. Mark Reynolds tells us how.
Then we'll talk about the unspeakable. Did you know the IPCC admits there are TWO main drivers behind climate change, but only looks at one? Solar power, wind power, carbon capture and storage, nuclear energy, tech, tech, tech, but our guest Philip Cafaro, editor of the new book "Life On the Brink" is ready to face the nasty issues politicians and environmentalists agree should never be mentioned.
Hot Radio for unstable times. I'm Alex Smith. This is Radio Ecoshock.
MARK REYNOLDS - BE YOUR OWN LOBBYIST FOR THE CLIMATE!
Mark Reynolds, Executive Director
All the big corporations have lobbyists in Washington. Every Member of Congress has a posse of lobbyists who visit, make donations, or take them on golf vacations in exotic places. And that's not just in America, but in pretty well every country.
When it comes to climate, who lobbies for us? Who will speak for our descendants? Our guest is Mark Reynolds. He's the Executive Director of the non-profit group called the Citizens Climate Lobby.
We find out Citizen's Climate Lobby teaches people how to lobby their political representatives. It's mainly aimed at American legislators, but there is a Canadian chapter as well. This technique could work in any pseudo-Democratic country.
People gather and get a workshop on how lobbying works. It was modelled after the successful "BUILD" lobby blitz, that brought U.S. funding to fight Third World poverty up from practically nothing to many millions of dollars. After the workshop, there are once-a-month conference calls which feature some expert speakers (like Dr. James Hansen of NASA), plus drills in how to get results with elected representatives.
People also learn how to mount an effective campaign of letters to the editor or op-ed writing. Reynolds say politicians really monitor such things. These groups also try to get many different voices on board. Mark suggests someone from the military, or a preacher, may be quite effective when visiting the politician in their home riding. Once a year they do a full blitz on Washington, trying to see every Senator and Congressman about climate change.
Don't just preach to them, says Reynolds. Listen. Find common ground, something you can relate to, before going.
I know my listeners are already asking themselves a lot of hard questions about this. For starters, the people who control the current House of Representatives in America have publicly stated climate change is a hoax, most likely a plot to tax and ruin American freedom. Do climate lobbyists talk to Tea Party denialists?
Indeed they do. The Citizens Climate Lobby has visited climate denier Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma several times. Reynolds has a good story about that in our interview.
What is the Climate Lobby pushing for? Certainly not bogus solutions like carbon trading. They advocate the "Fee and Dividend" approach suggested by James Hansen. People do pay a "tax" on carbon (raising the price of gas for example). But ALL that money is kept away from government. Instead it is paid back to every citizen in a cheque which eases the pain of paying more. I call it bribing people to do the right thing, with their own money.
During the interview, Reynolds mentions "the Pigou club" Find out more on Pigou here, and the club's founder and premise here. Wiki says:
"[Greg] Mankiw has become an influential figure in the Blogosphere and online journalism since launching his blog. The blog, originally designed to assist his Ec10 students, has gained a readership that extends far beyond students of introductory economics. In particular, he has used it as a platform to advocate the implementation of pigovian taxes such as a revenue-neutral carbon tax; to this end Mankiw founded the informal Pigou Club."
, explaining how Republicans could support this climate action plan.
I'm so disgusted with politics, I woulnd't believe this lobby idea could work. But Reynolds mostly convinced me this IS a worthwhile effort. Listen to the interview. Check out . Then visit citizensclimatelobby.org
PHILIP CAFARO - CONFRONTING POPULATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Philip Cafaro, Colorado State University
The melting Arctic, that's far enough away. Electric cars or solar cities, that's far enough away too. But talk about fewer babies, those lovable babies, or stopping immigration, and maybe state control of family size - those are bombs that stimulate a kind of self-censorship even greens go along with. Start talking about population control, and even the best listeners start reaching to change stations.
When I add that our guest Philip Cafaro specializes in "ethics", that doesn't help. Ethics is hardly the hot buzzword of the day on TV or social media.
So Philip, we have about thirty seconds to convince our great Radio Ecoshock listeners they need to hear this conversation. Why drag up population, immigration, and birth control, just when we're finally getting the public on board with the reality of climate change?
Personally, I think there is a deep and embedded form of self-censorship at work here. I didn't really look foward to doing this program. The whole issue makes me uncomfortable and unpopular, and that's the point. Stopping climate catastrophe is not all happy thoughts and popularity.
Philip teaches philosophy in Fort Collins, at Colorado State University. He's the co-editor of a new collection of essays called "Life on the Brink, Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation." The contributors are real green leaders, some of them already guests on Radio Ecoshock, like Albert Bartlett, Lester Brown, and Paul Ehrlich. In the book, we hear from the academics, but from activists too, like Dave Foreman of Earth First!, and Captain Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Society.
We start with the contentious issue of immigration. In the United States, new polls show millions of Latinos are concerned about climate change. Now this book seems to be saying we should stop immigration. This is a hot issue not just in the U.S., but in Australia, Canada, the UK, and most developed countries in Europe. Why oh why, would environmentalists get involved in immigration debates? After all, the immigration debate nearly wrecked the Sierra Club of California at one point.
The trouble is: population growth is real and relentless. We can duck it, and the millions more keep coming every month. Earth hit 7 billion humans in 2012, and will be at 8 billion before 2024. The stats are real and undeniable.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there are TWO major causes of climate change. One is fossil fuel burning, agriculture and deforestation. The other, though they never talk more about it, is population. Pure and simple.
Phil Cafaro, co-editor of the new book "Life on the Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation" pulls no punches. It's now or never to stop humans from over-running the last of the planet, last stop before die-off.
We could do something about it. It's not quite time to give up. Anyway, giving up is not an option.
Our guest Philip Cafaro is also the president of the International Society for Environmental Ethics, and president of the board of directors of Progressives for Immigration Reform.
The other editor of "Life on the Brink" is Eileen Crist, from Virginia Tech, known for her book "Gaia in Turmoil." The book is published by University of Georgia Press.
SUPPORT NON-PROFIT RADIO!
As always, please support your local non-profit radio station. One of the best since 1960, WBAI New York is in emergency fund raising mode, to keep their famous transmitter atop the Empire State Building. The station has not yet recovered from being flooded out by Hurricane Sandy. In fact, every non-profit and community radio station needs your help right now. Take nothing for granted. If you love freedom of the airwaves, without corporate control, please get online, or on the phone and put your money where your ears are, to support your local radio station.
A huge thank you to Radio Ecoshock supporters who keep this program on the air.
Rebecca in Australia, your generous donation gave me renewed determination to keep pumping out the awful truth.
I can't thank everyone personally, but listeners around the world make this show possible. I am grateful for donations coming in through our web site and blog. Help yourself to our big library of free mp3 audio downloads at ecoshock.org. Your support has made more than a million downloads of Radio Ecoshock program happen over the years.
DID YOU MISS OUR SPECIAL PODCAST - THE BRIEFING FROM THE FUKUSHIMA CONFERENCE IN NEW YORK?
Coming up on Radio Ecoshock: the new wave of low-energy homes, and new waves of rising seas - is it still safe to live near the Coast? Plus a suRprise guest who always puts Earth first.
We'll have to squeeze that in with some powerful talks from the conference in New York City organized by the Helen Caldicott Foundation and Physicians for Social Responsibility on March 11th, 2013, two years after the triple melt down in Japan.
Expect recordings from the conference "The Medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident" in upcoming Radio Ecoshock shows.
People who subscribe to our podcast should have received a taste with my special news podcast "Poisoned Flag: US Sailors Nuked by Fukushima". Two U.S. sailors tell their stories of being poisoned with radioactivity aboard the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan during the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan.
It's a harrowing tale of being exposed to radiation blowing from Fukushima, over a period of two months, as close as one mile from shore. They were not told of the accident until weeks later, were never properly tested for exposure, received no preventative treatment, and even now get no medical help from the Navy. Allegedly forced to sign waivers releasing the Navy from any responsibility, the pair are among more than a hundred American sailors suing TEPCO, the Japanese nuclear plant operator.
If you missed this 28 minute press briefing from New York, download it here in CD Quality, or in Lo-Fi.
Even CBS News covered it. (Caution: this page can be slow to load, and puts you through an ad first, but still, you get to see the Vets talking Fukushima on TV...)
I don't do many between-shows news broadcasts, but if you want to receive them, click on the podcast symbol at our web site, ecoshock.org. That way you'll be sure to get all our programs, plus the extra podcasts that only go out to subscribers!
At the end of this week's show I squeeze in part of another song from Nimbin Australia. The group is Pagan Love Cult. It's their CSG Song, meaning coal seam gas, also known as fracking methane.
Find some of their music here.
I'm Alex Smith. Thank you for listening.
10 comments:
The focus on immigration as part of an overall strategy to limit population growth was a real surprise from Ecoshock Radio. As someone who has long been concerned about the impact of human numbers on the environment and the survival of other species, I welcomed your segment on overpopulation and Life on the Brink, then quickly descended into desperation at being lumped by your guest with the anti abortion camp for disagreeing with some of his solutions for population control.
Honestly, I am not at all clear why immigration control is even part of the discussion, especially from people purporting to offer some kind of an international/ethical perspective. Isn't the environment a global issue? And if that's the case, then how exactly does moving or not moving human populations around the world is going to reduce their numbers? Most surprising of all was your suggestion, Alex, about how the same immigrants settling in the US, Canada and other developed nations would increase their carbon footprint significantly than if they just stayed put in their own countries. Which calls for the conclusion that population control for the US et al is necessary so that we can keep our consumption patterns at many times higher than elsewhere in the world, and oh, aren't we so good, we could try and accommodate a couple of bears and wolves while we're at it.
It's bad enough to hear the constant mainstream chatter about the "immigration problem" which is always stripped from any mention of how our multinational corporations plunder the lands and impoverish the people where immigrant populations are coming from. Are we in North America only affected by the melting arctic but not by the destruction of say, the Amazon rain forest? Let this exploitation and habitat destruction cease and then we'll see if (a) would-be immigrants won't actually prefer to stay home and (b) we can maintain our own standard of living -- electric cars, solar cities and all.
The climate change horse is fully receding while mooning us. Reasoning behind closing the barn door needs to be revised.
The Climate Train Has Left The Station - Decline of the Empire:
http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2013/03/the-climate-train-has-left-the-station.html
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Arctic News: The worst-case and - unfortunately - looking almost certain to happen scenario
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-worst-case-and-unfortunately-looking-almost-certain-to-happen-scenario.html?m=0
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To Boldly Go Where None Have Been Before...
http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2013/03/to-boldly-go-where-none-have-been-before.html?m=0
Alex, thank you for taking on this very contentious subject (and for all you do!).
I can understand Brandy's objections to coflating overpopulation and immigration, because I do think there is a segment that simply wants to pull up the drawbridge while continuing to live a lavish, high-consumption life-style.
Ironically that isn't possible anyway, because that life-style is predicated on growth, which is ultimately impossible on a finite planet - as well as exploitation of poor countries to extract resources and slave labor.
Furthermore, even Brandy exhibits that fallacy by imaginging we can "maintain our own standard of living through electric cars and solar cities". There is no way that "clean" energy can replace the dense power of fossil fuels and so that lifestyle cannot be maintained.
I also do have some understanding that to the extent that the developed nations take in immigrants from poorer nations, it is simply enabling them to grow their population beyond the carrying capacity of their country.
I seriously doubt there will be an intelligent sollution to any of these conundrums, and Mother Nature will soon solve it for us.
In the meanwhile I am grateful for this radio program that doesn't censor ideas.
More thoughts on the subject can be found at
http://www.writeaboutwarming.blogspot.com/search/label/educating%20women
Your comment is puzzling. What is the farm metaphor? Are you suggesting things are more dire than currently perceived?
Brandy - I will pose your criticism to deep green immigration speaker Dave Foreman in an upcoming interview.
Wesmofo - sorry, I'm not sure which "farm metaphor" you mean. Can you explain a bit?
Regarding Gail's comment on my comment: "Furthermore, even Brandy exhibits that fallacy by imagining we can "maintain our own standard of living through electric cars and solar cities". There is no way that "clean" energy can replace the dense power of fossil fuels and so that lifestyle cannot be maintained."
Maybe I wasn't clear, but I meant it the other way around, i.e., the proof should be in the pudding -- we'll see if we can maintain our lifestyle without resource exploitation on other continents -- clean energy or not. (maybe I should have added "I think not" at the end but I thought it was self evident. Oh, well.) Anyway, "electric cars and solar cities" are just words I borrowed from Alex's introduction to this segment (about how the melting arctic and clean energy aren't quite as immediate as having babies), I was essentially saying the same as you, Gail, that we can't continue on this path EVEN with so-called clean energy sources. (Although technically I'm not sure they can't replace fossil fuels -- as in the example of Germany -- I just think that the production/resources/land mass required to set them up at current levels of consumption/human population can't possibly be sustainable.)
Granted, my main point was about immigration, and I was just echoing what I thought Alex's guest was getting at -- that the US environment will not be able to support the growth of population that will result from allowing immigrants into the country. And I thought the context was still the current North American standard of living.
What I was getting at was that many immigrants come here after "we" destroyed their economies and made it near impossible for them to stay at home if they want to eat. Most people, given a way to make a living and safety from persecution, prefer the place where they grew up and have their extended family, community, and familiar culture/language. And while there are other reasons that people immigrate, i.e.,plenty of immigrants come from developed countries and/or middle class backgrounds (I am an example of one), the debate in the US typically centers around poor immigrants with the implication that they have a net negative effect on the society at large. So for me, to close the door on immigration as an environmental solution and treat the US environment as separate from the rest of the globe is essentially turning things on their head.
Overall, the "immigration solution" sounds like a red herring to me, much like the assertion that nuclear power is a form of clean energy. Granted, Alex had a guest on in the past who said that much and I didn't comment, maybe because I hear plenty of people out there who express an opposing view (Dr. Caldicott comes to mind). My comment on this segment had nothing to do with a need for censorship, and if I wanted censorship I wouldn't be a listener in the first place. While the segment presented an opinion of environmental experts on immigration, for me, it echoed a mean-spirited, narrow mainstream view (where censorship is king), so I thought I should point out that out.
I value Alex's work and Radio Ecoshock probably more than anything I hear on the airwaves these days, and I didn't mean to suggest anything to the contrary by weighing in on this topic.
Outstanding show. Thanks Alex. Please don't stop exposing threats from population.